June 2, 2009
Is That a Bellows in Your Tunic?
Gay, Bucolic BDSM by Straight Ladies, for Straight Ladies
Kris Chau
Tools
Transgressions
by Erastes
(Running Press, $12.95)
Hello! Information time: Here are three things that make me uncomfortable. One. Sexual writing. Two. Ye olde-tymey British fancytalke. Third is gay dudes. (J/K, guys! J/K to the obv!) Third is actually TUNICS. Well, too bad for me! Because these three uncomfortables have combined their powers in Transgressions, a new novel belonging to a slightly mystifying genre known as M/M fiction: gay romance written by straight women, for straight women. Hhhyah! Maybe you didn't know! I also didn't! But now that we know, we are permanently impregnated with little brainbabies of knowledge, and there's no such thing as a brainbortion last time I checked, am I right!? WELL, AM I?
I do know that there are straight women out there who enjoy watching gay-male pornographies. I am also aware of slash fiction (dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson), which is also mostly by/for straight women. So I don't really know why M/M seems so weird to me, while slash just seems kooky—I guess, first of all, I wouldn't put anything past nerd-women who go to conventions and rub magical wizard staffs on each others' lady areas. And second, there's something socially conservative about a traditional romance novel, how the men are always strapping and the ladies always swooning. I associate that with matronly aunts, not straight women liberated enough to admit a preference for gay erotica. The disconnect is jarring: Transgressions absolutely belongs to the traditional romance genre (on her blog, author Erastes calls it a "breeches-ripper," as opposed to a "bodice-ripper"); it just happens to be about gays and bucolic BDSM.
Stranger Personals
Transgressions takes place during the English Civil War of 1642, when Oliver Cromwell was all, "Parliament! Blah blah blah!" And King Charles was all, "Oh no, thoust di'int, Cromwell!" And then war happened. Out on a country-bumpkin bumpfarm, David is a beautiful, slender man-boy who dreams big dreams. Jonathan is a dark, burly blacksmith with puritanical ways. The two share a bed and get secret ye olde boners for a hundred pages or so, and they fall in sweet country love, which goes like this:
To have Jonathan wake him once more in the dead of the night for pure lust, to feel him wrap those vise-like arms around him and pull him physically off the mattress and into his lap, sliding into his fundament so sweetly, that just the look on Jonathan's face as he took possession of David, was sometimes enough to trigger his own seed to spatter between them.
Cute. Unfortunately for the spattering lovebirds, David is accused of rape and runs off to the army. They are then separated for many scores of fortnights (eh? How am I doing with the lingo?): David shacks up with a couple of fellow homo-soldiers ("Just let me do this for thee, and if you like it not, I shall stop"), while Jonathan stumbles into the sadistic employ of the "Witchfinder General" and gets busy finding witches (with a little sexual crucifixion on the side). Will they get back together in the end? I found myself kind of mildly wanting to know. And that's something, I guess.
Romance writing could almost be defined by its determination to forcibly unite the explicit and the elegant. Which, let me add, is awkward. If you're going to be smut, be smut. Go all the way. And if you're going to be historical fiction, PLEASE DON'T SAY "WEEPING COCK" ON EVERY OTHER PAGE. The big problems with dirty books are that there are only so many ways to write about sex and there are very few ways to write about sex in a sexy way. Here are some examples of how to write about sex in an unsexy way: "Michael's hand slipped to his weeping cock [SEE!?!?] and closed around it, fisting it slowly [Erastes, I think you are unclear on the definition of 'fisting']." "Tobias' hot and so familiar breath was on his cock and with a desperate groan David slipped into his lover's mouth, just as Tobias slid a slender finger into his entrance [note: This entrance is also an exit!]." "He was plunged forward into the same vision he had had when first he had fucked the Devil [gwuh?]; he again saw the Angel at the end of the path, a flaming sword in his hands and the sword was his own cock [WHAAAT THAAA FAAACK?], splendid and on fire with a righteous light."
I was talking about Transgressions to a gay friend of mine, and he commented, "Oh, it's like porn for fag hags!" But I BEG TO DIFFER, GAY FRIEND. Being more than a bit haggy myself, I am definitely not interested in the intimate details of any of my gay friends' firecocks, or "sudden hardnesses," or that time you wrapped "rein-callused fingers around the youth's pink and gold member," or what anyone does with anyone's "honeyed cleft." (On that note, if there exists any circumstance in which "honeyed cleft" can be a convincing substitute for "butthole," we will most certainly not find it 'neath the pantaloons of a 17th-century blacksmith. Just sayeth.)
But everyone has her thing, I guess! Everyone has her thing. And to
be honest, I don't see anything wrong with a lady pursuing her thing,
even if her thing is completely incomprehensible to a lady like me. Who
am I? Who am I to judge another lady's thing? 
Share via
2
Bucolic gay romance? Not my thing, either.
That said, there are many many women -- like me! hello there! -- who love romance, and the smut that goes with it. And I ain't nobody's maiden aunt.
That said, writing about sex is hard. I mean -- a slippery slope. I mean -- things get sticky. I mean -- you get the point. And this book sounds terrible.
You are right on about the squickiness of weeping cocks. Whatever it ought to be doing, crying ain't it.
That said, there are many many women -- like me! hello there! -- who love romance, and the smut that goes with it. And I ain't nobody's maiden aunt.
That said, writing about sex is hard. I mean -- a slippery slope. I mean -- things get sticky. I mean -- you get the point. And this book sounds terrible.
You are right on about the squickiness of weeping cocks. Whatever it ought to be doing, crying ain't it.
3
Interesting review; kind of like a Vegetarian Critic at a Steak House. Entertaining, but not targeted towards the right audience. Having perused a few “bodice rippers” I’d say from the annotated extract that the only difference is that the “heroine” is removing breeches.
Honey—liberally ladled in Romance of all kinds—certainly arises in places no self-respecting bee would care to wax a comb in… I’m just saying.
Honey—liberally ladled in Romance of all kinds—certainly arises in places no self-respecting bee would care to wax a comb in… I’m just saying.
4
The alternative, of course,is that you're wrong about romance novels being socially conservative and wrong about the women who read them.
Which, actually, you are.
And second, there's something socially conservative about a traditional romance novel, how the men are always strapping and the ladies always swooning. I associate that with matronly aunts, not straight women liberated enough to admit a preference for gay erotica.
The alternative, of course,is that you're wrong about romance novels being socially conservative and wrong about the women who read them.
Which, actually, you are.
7
Didn't get past paragraph one. Usually I can keep my lunch down long enough to seek a point in your adolescent yammering, but you just flat-out pissed me off from the get-go. If you don't know anything about slash fans or the subculture, just as in judging other subcultures, it's probably best to keep your damn mouth shut on the subject. Slash fans do read this paper and blog--so why do you insist on alienating and offending your loyal readers? (Oh wait, I forgot--that's standard operation for the Stranger.)
8
Didn't get past paragraph one. Usually I can keep my lunch down long enough to seek a point in your adolescent yammering, but you just flat-out pissed me off from the get-go. If you don't know anything about slash fans or the subculture, just as in judging other subcultures, it's probably best to keep your damn mouth shut on the subject. Slash fans do read this paper and blog--so why do you insist on alienating and offending your loyal readers? (Oh wait, I forgot--that's standard operation for the Stranger.)
9
How did you come to choose this particular novel, as opposed to other fiction in its genre, to read and use as your basis of evaluation for the genre? Obviously, like any literary genre, there is both excellent and piss-poor writing that serves as an example to the genre--was this recommended to you by somebody who has more than a passing familiarity with books like it?
(Because my vision for how you came to read this book goes along the lines of: Paul Constant tossed it at your desk, going "This came in the mail and it's for straight women, and it looks like it might be wacky, and you're in charge of wacky around here.")
(Because my vision for how you came to read this book goes along the lines of: Paul Constant tossed it at your desk, going "This came in the mail and it's for straight women, and it looks like it might be wacky, and you're in charge of wacky around here.")
11
Hi @8: I've written about slash recently. The thing is, this book isn't slash. Slash is gay romantic or erotic fan fiction. This is gay romance fiction featuring original characters. There's a difference.
13
Lindy, you are freakin hilarious! Keep writing stuff like this -- you crack me up! You made my evening.
@7/8 - you suck. Get thee bug out thy ass and SHOVE IT.
@7/8 - you suck. Get thee bug out thy ass and SHOVE IT.
14
There's actually better gay romance? I mean, guys have sex and fall in love, and ladies write about it. This lady didn't write about it well. Those sex scenes sound gross.
I wouldn't want to write about Oliver Cromwell. Everyone had shitty haircuts and outfits. Totally sucky time of history.
You should check out Smart Bitches Read Trashy Books. Those ladies have v. funny reviews of romances for people who aren't matronly aunts. Which is most romance readers.
I wouldn't want to write about Oliver Cromwell. Everyone had shitty haircuts and outfits. Totally sucky time of history.
You should check out Smart Bitches Read Trashy Books. Those ladies have v. funny reviews of romances for people who aren't matronly aunts. Which is most romance readers.
15
@11: I know. I also commented on that article and thanked you for it. I'm merely saying that while Lindy is talking about a genre other than slash, her offensive remarks about slash fans turned this reader off.
I know as well as anyone that there are wackos and pervs in slash fandom, but I also know a great deal of fannish writing and writers that surpass "professional" published fiction, of any genre. As a slash fan and writer, I'd appreciate a bit more respect, especially coming from someone whose sole lifetime accomplishment is writing movie reviews for a local rag.
I know as well as anyone that there are wackos and pervs in slash fandom, but I also know a great deal of fannish writing and writers that surpass "professional" published fiction, of any genre. As a slash fan and writer, I'd appreciate a bit more respect, especially coming from someone whose sole lifetime accomplishment is writing movie reviews for a local rag.
16
I want to add that while this article isn't directly about slash, the topic of gay romance--especially written by and for straight women--is bound to interest a slash fan such as myself. That's why I clicked, even though I generally dislike Lindy's style. Why entice people to read an article about a very specific genre, then bash the same audience you're courting?
17
@ Miss M:
While I'd agree that I found slash that was good while I was researching my piece, I would have to say that I found a lot that was bad, too. However, I don't think it'd be my place to write a negative review of it because it's amateur fiction, and I'm a professional critic and that's a cruel and unnecessary line to cross.
However, this book was (presumably) edited and published professionally, and they sent copies to a professional reviewer for review, and so I think a negative review is a perfectly fine thing to write if the book warrants it. Lindy's piece brings attention to a whole genre, but unfortunately the book that she's highlighting is not so good. (I looked at the book myself, and I assure you it isn't good.)
Personally, what I hope will come of this is that someone will find the subject matter interesting, read Lindy's review, laugh, and then, if he or she is interested in the idea of the book being reviewed, seek out something better.
While I'd agree that I found slash that was good while I was researching my piece, I would have to say that I found a lot that was bad, too. However, I don't think it'd be my place to write a negative review of it because it's amateur fiction, and I'm a professional critic and that's a cruel and unnecessary line to cross.
However, this book was (presumably) edited and published professionally, and they sent copies to a professional reviewer for review, and so I think a negative review is a perfectly fine thing to write if the book warrants it. Lindy's piece brings attention to a whole genre, but unfortunately the book that she's highlighting is not so good. (I looked at the book myself, and I assure you it isn't good.)
Personally, what I hope will come of this is that someone will find the subject matter interesting, read Lindy's review, laugh, and then, if he or she is interested in the idea of the book being reviewed, seek out something better.
18
For being such a hater, Miss M, you sure do spend a lot of time on here. "let's go back and see how bad it is again!" Why?
19
Being a lesbian middle aged woman, and no one's matronly aunt myself, I have to say I take exception to the over-generalizations about romance readers here.
Forsooth, thou art mistaken, madam, in the broad sweeping of thine inept brush.
As for the book? Well I rarely allow reviews, good or bad, to decide for me whether it's a good book or not. I'm waiting for my copy to arrive, so can't say either way.
Forsooth, thou art mistaken, madam, in the broad sweeping of thine inept brush.
As for the book? Well I rarely allow reviews, good or bad, to decide for me whether it's a good book or not. I'm waiting for my copy to arrive, so can't say either way.
20
ok i'm not into slash so much, but she wrote one half a line specifically about slash, and it wasn't all that offensive. what's the big deal?
21
The review reeks, stinks, exudes ignorance - under the guise of catty and mocking wit.
All the phrases this silly straight lady mocks I have heard many a time in gay males sexual revolution culture, the pillow talk that is part of hours of hot sex with highly sexed, literate and verbal modern male queers.... here in SEATTLE, in THIS century.
The review is written by a bit of a silly twit.
Weeping dicks are the pre come wonders, and they are a niffty deal. And, yes the term is weeping.
Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters.
Is ignorance akin to humor, only to un informed straight ladies with few gay sex clues on hand.
Oh, well, the rubes on Slog liked it.
Alex la Rouge
All the phrases this silly straight lady mocks I have heard many a time in gay males sexual revolution culture, the pillow talk that is part of hours of hot sex with highly sexed, literate and verbal modern male queers.... here in SEATTLE, in THIS century.
The review is written by a bit of a silly twit.
Weeping dicks are the pre come wonders, and they are a niffty deal. And, yes the term is weeping.
Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters.
Is ignorance akin to humor, only to un informed straight ladies with few gay sex clues on hand.
Oh, well, the rubes on Slog liked it.
Alex la Rouge
23
Okay, the story itself may not be that well written.
But I gotta say if you think that mainstream guy/gal romances are 'conservative' you haven't read anything written after the 1960's.
But I gotta say if you think that mainstream guy/gal romances are 'conservative' you haven't read anything written after the 1960's.
24
I don't think this reviewer read the same book I did. I think she paged through it and pulled a few lines that sounded smarmy to her. I think, in fact, that Lindy shouldn't try to strain her wee brain on historical novels set in periods of which she wots not.
25
Lindy,
I write both straight and gay erotic fiction and erotic romance. I've been publishing since 2000 and have six print titles to my credit as well as many more ebook titles. I review erotica for two well known websites, though I suppose I can't claim to be a professional critic since I do reviews out of the goodness of my heart and in quest of honesty about the genre.
You're clearly entitled to your own opinion, but I can tell you from personal experience that the market for M/M erotic romance is huge, enthusiastic, and not particularly conservative. I don't think that you really understand that market (which of course may be your point).
Personally, I like Erastes' writing, though I haven't read "Transgressions". You need to recognize that not only is this M/M erotic romance, it's HISTORICAL M/M romance. Erastes is deliberately using flowery language, at least partially, because in general people in that period tended to employ less direct and more complex locutions. If you read contemporary M/M erotic romance (such as my own work), you will find a very different style.
That being the case, it is true that M/M erotic romance tends to be gentler than at least some of the gay erotica that I've read and reviewed. Fundamentally, romance in any sub-genre is about love, not just sex. Readers expect not only passion but also emotional commitment. Anonymous sex, celebrated in gay erotica, doesn't really interest romance readers unless it turns into a relationship.
I took a survey of my readers a while ago, asking them whether they liked M/M romance and if so, why. I got some fascinating responses. You can read more at
http://totalebound.blogspot.com/2009/04/…
I'd like to suggest that before you pass judgment on the genre, you explore it a bit more widely.
Best regards,
Lisabet Sarai
http://www.lisabetsarai.com
More...
I write both straight and gay erotic fiction and erotic romance. I've been publishing since 2000 and have six print titles to my credit as well as many more ebook titles. I review erotica for two well known websites, though I suppose I can't claim to be a professional critic since I do reviews out of the goodness of my heart and in quest of honesty about the genre.
You're clearly entitled to your own opinion, but I can tell you from personal experience that the market for M/M erotic romance is huge, enthusiastic, and not particularly conservative. I don't think that you really understand that market (which of course may be your point).
Personally, I like Erastes' writing, though I haven't read "Transgressions". You need to recognize that not only is this M/M erotic romance, it's HISTORICAL M/M romance. Erastes is deliberately using flowery language, at least partially, because in general people in that period tended to employ less direct and more complex locutions. If you read contemporary M/M erotic romance (such as my own work), you will find a very different style.
That being the case, it is true that M/M erotic romance tends to be gentler than at least some of the gay erotica that I've read and reviewed. Fundamentally, romance in any sub-genre is about love, not just sex. Readers expect not only passion but also emotional commitment. Anonymous sex, celebrated in gay erotica, doesn't really interest romance readers unless it turns into a relationship.
I took a survey of my readers a while ago, asking them whether they liked M/M romance and if so, why. I got some fascinating responses. You can read more at
http://totalebound.blogspot.com/2009/04/…
I'd like to suggest that before you pass judgment on the genre, you explore it a bit more widely.
Best regards,
Lisabet Sarai
http://www.lisabetsarai.com
26
People that get angry for The Stranger alienating them have clearly not been reading this paper very long. It's standard operation, and it seems like that's the point. Most other newspapers attempt to pacify. The Stranger usually attempts to incite.
But it's always preferred when people actually research the topic they're writing about. Lindy.
But it's always preferred when people actually research the topic they're writing about. Lindy.
28
@25 Unless I'm misreading, Lindy is saying she would *not* expect readers of m/m to be conservative (despite its similarities to the traditional romance genre). I'm not taking sides on whether traditional romance is conservative or not (Janice Radway's 1980s-era book Reading the Romance takes on this idea pretty directly). I'm just clarifying a small point of Lindy's (very funny) piece.
29
@25 don't you kind of miss the point -- whatever the point actually is or isn't -- when you write, though I haven't read "Transgressions". i mean, doesn't that make you even less qualified than anyone who's actually read the book in question?
30
People should keep in mind that The Stranger should not be expected to have reviewers who are fans of every conceivable sub-sub-sub genre of fiction. If the publishers of historical M/M romance (3 subs right there) submit novels for review, they ought to be aware that they run the risk of having their work criticized by non-fans, and that said non-fans might just end up bagging on it.
32
At this late point, I'm going to chime in and add that good gay historical romance is probably one of the sneakiest targeted-at-the-midcountry tactics for getting gay marriage accepted in places where it is currently not. (Terrible sentence. My apologies.) Especially if someone starts writing good gay Christian romance -- come to think of it, someone probably already does. Anybody know?
33
"If you don't know anything about slash fans or the subculture, just as in judging other subcultures, it's probably best to keep your damn mouth shut on the subject."
No, actually, that's what makes it funny to all the rest of us.
No, actually, that's what makes it funny to all the rest of us.
35
It would appear that, aside from the reviewer, I'm the only commenter hear who has actually read Transgressions. I liked it--quite a bit, actually--enough so to write a five-star review at Amazon. I also liked its "partner," that is, the other book published by Running Press as part of its new m/m romance line. That book, if anyone is curious, is False Colors by Alex Beecroft and I gave it a five-star review, too. Two more books are scheduled to be released in the fall and I am looking forward to them.
These books might not be to everyone's taste and they might not enjoy the style of writing. That's fine. As a friend said to me recently, books are like opinions. That's why there are so many of them.
These books might not be to everyone's taste and they might not enjoy the style of writing. That's fine. As a friend said to me recently, books are like opinions. That's why there are so many of them.
37
@25 I'm pretty sure Lindy understands the concept of historical fiction being written in a different style than modern fiction. I'm pretty sure all of us understand that concept, actually. But, it sounds like this book is written in a "historical style" that is awkward and clunky (on top of the typical flowery language in many romance novels). So, that makes it an easy target for mockery.
Plus, if you guys are into this genre and want an actual review of the book, why the hell are you turning to the Stranger? This article is meant to be funny, not a a real review. Duh.
Plus, if you guys are into this genre and want an actual review of the book, why the hell are you turning to the Stranger? This article is meant to be funny, not a a real review. Duh.
38
Aren't historical romances supposed to have a happy ending?
To be historically accurate, a 1600's gay romance would have to end with a big bonfire. Not a happy ending.
To be historically accurate, a 1600's gay romance would have to end with a big bonfire. Not a happy ending.
39
Porno has cheesy dialog, moronic plots, bad dialog, ridiculous bow-chick-wow-wow music, and really hot sex. This has everything but the hot sex...and the stupid background music. I'd call it amateur but a few (very few) of the amateurs who write slash or "erotic original fiction" are actually good. And by good, I mean they have interesting characters that aren't feminized (gay men are still men!), realistic plots and dialog, sex scenes that don't read like cheesy "breeches" ripper, and enough action (sexual or otherwise) to keep your attention but wraps up in a timely fashion.
The only good thing about this was the review.
The only good thing about this was the review.
40
Lindy - As a gaye man I share thy bemusement; my breeches did not rise nor were my loins stirred by the bizarre intimate details you hath quoted.
Ye olde drawing of ye stereotypical half-naked hunkye young male on the cover of this tome shouldst giveth fair warning for those who wouldst plunder its depths, seeking for literary treasures and alas finding nought but overwrought prose which leaveth a bad taste in thy mouth, then wishing in vain for the return of lost pieces of gold which hath been wasted.
Once again, the abundance of many-starred gushing reviews on Ye Olde Amazon.com leaves one pondering on the likelihood of their bona fides.
Ye olde drawing of ye stereotypical half-naked hunkye young male on the cover of this tome shouldst giveth fair warning for those who wouldst plunder its depths, seeking for literary treasures and alas finding nought but overwrought prose which leaveth a bad taste in thy mouth, then wishing in vain for the return of lost pieces of gold which hath been wasted.
Once again, the abundance of many-starred gushing reviews on Ye Olde Amazon.com leaves one pondering on the likelihood of their bona fides.
41
I found this article a very peculiar mix of amusing and offensive, a combination I don't experience often. Clearly this particular book was poorly written, and the critique was meant to point this out in a humorous fashion. I can see where Lindy was going, but I'm somewhat offended by the path taken to get there.
First: "I am also aware of slash fiction (dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson)"
While I would happily be the first to point out that 90% of slash fanfiction (actually, probably ALL fanfic) is pretty terribad, I feel that the 10% that is well written and engaging deserves some respect. A well written story is not something everyone can accomplish, and I for one am impressed by those who have the talent. I'm also disturbed by the phrase "dirty gay fanfic" and the subsequent pause in train of thought while Lindy attempts to conjure up the worst case scenario. It's that this fanfiction was labeled dirty before you even had an example in mind that bothers me. Is it that it's dirty because it's fanfiction, or because it's homosexual in nature?
The second major issue I have with this article:
"David slipped into his lover's mouth, just as Tobias slid a slender finger into his entrance [note: This entrance is also an exit!]."
Technically, ALL "entrances" on the human body are also exits. At least, I personally can't think of an orifice that doesn't excrete something at some point. By your implication then, the only sex anyone should be having should consist entirely of handjobs and frottage. Good god does THAT sound boring.
While I can appreciate the attempt at humor here, I feel Ms. Lindy is a bit too sexually conservative to appreciate this genre, and find myself agreeing with #3 when they say this is "kind of like a Vegetarian Critic at a Steak House". For heavens sake, if you don't even properly understand or recognize the terms "weeping" and "fisting" how much romance, gay OR straight, could you really have read?
More...
First: "I am also aware of slash fiction (dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson)"
While I would happily be the first to point out that 90% of slash fanfiction (actually, probably ALL fanfic) is pretty terribad, I feel that the 10% that is well written and engaging deserves some respect. A well written story is not something everyone can accomplish, and I for one am impressed by those who have the talent. I'm also disturbed by the phrase "dirty gay fanfic" and the subsequent pause in train of thought while Lindy attempts to conjure up the worst case scenario. It's that this fanfiction was labeled dirty before you even had an example in mind that bothers me. Is it that it's dirty because it's fanfiction, or because it's homosexual in nature?
The second major issue I have with this article:
"David slipped into his lover's mouth, just as Tobias slid a slender finger into his entrance [note: This entrance is also an exit!]."
Technically, ALL "entrances" on the human body are also exits. At least, I personally can't think of an orifice that doesn't excrete something at some point. By your implication then, the only sex anyone should be having should consist entirely of handjobs and frottage. Good god does THAT sound boring.
While I can appreciate the attempt at humor here, I feel Ms. Lindy is a bit too sexually conservative to appreciate this genre, and find myself agreeing with #3 when they say this is "kind of like a Vegetarian Critic at a Steak House". For heavens sake, if you don't even properly understand or recognize the terms "weeping" and "fisting" how much romance, gay OR straight, could you really have read?
43
I haven't read the book and so I don't think it's fair for me to rate it one way or another.
However, I've read this review, and I must say I found it ... unprofessional. I understand that it is intended to be funny and I very much appreciate journalism that use humor to offer insight, but I felt that this review is written with more intention to offend than to inform.
1) I fail to understand why this book is chosen if these things make you uncomfortable. When I finish the first paragraph, my impression is that you are using this book as a convenient platform to prove your point, which is your distaste for the genre. Reviews, by nature, has an element of subjectivity, but the first sentences gave me the sense that this is a highly personal and emotional opinion—and by extention, has little credibility. You are ready to bash it before you begin.
But I read on...
2) The nerds you claimed to claimed to have "put nothing past" had a derogatory description; also, I honestly fail to see the difference between "matronly aunts" and "straight women who ..."; they are all females and each have their own taste—and I found this condescending to both groups. Slash fiction, meanwhile, has many pairings, with Kirk/Spock being the most traditional and well known. Why not use that pair as an example rather than an underage wizard and his evil nemesis? I understand those are all arguments for your perspective and I try to understand your logic, but was more distracted by the contempt you displayed with your language.
Then just a few added opinions because I'm long winded like that:
- Elegant and explicit aren't inherent opposites; I do believe there's common ground. Good writing can make anything not awkward and beautiful. Romance in the media (films, books etc) have proven that to be possible.
- Nobody has a right to judge other people's thing, but we all do—we have opinions. And it's ironic that you ask about judging (maybe it's meant to be funny?) you have judged with a whole review. For someone like me, a lay reader, my judgement means little, but yours carry more weight as a critic—please use it wisely to persuade us who take time to read your thoughts.
More...
However, I've read this review, and I must say I found it ... unprofessional. I understand that it is intended to be funny and I very much appreciate journalism that use humor to offer insight, but I felt that this review is written with more intention to offend than to inform.
1) I fail to understand why this book is chosen if these things make you uncomfortable. When I finish the first paragraph, my impression is that you are using this book as a convenient platform to prove your point, which is your distaste for the genre. Reviews, by nature, has an element of subjectivity, but the first sentences gave me the sense that this is a highly personal and emotional opinion—and by extention, has little credibility. You are ready to bash it before you begin.
But I read on...
2) The nerds you claimed to claimed to have "put nothing past" had a derogatory description; also, I honestly fail to see the difference between "matronly aunts" and "straight women who ..."; they are all females and each have their own taste—and I found this condescending to both groups. Slash fiction, meanwhile, has many pairings, with Kirk/Spock being the most traditional and well known. Why not use that pair as an example rather than an underage wizard and his evil nemesis? I understand those are all arguments for your perspective and I try to understand your logic, but was more distracted by the contempt you displayed with your language.
Then just a few added opinions because I'm long winded like that:
- Elegant and explicit aren't inherent opposites; I do believe there's common ground. Good writing can make anything not awkward and beautiful. Romance in the media (films, books etc) have proven that to be possible.
- Nobody has a right to judge other people's thing, but we all do—we have opinions. And it's ironic that you ask about judging (maybe it's meant to be funny?) you have judged with a whole review. For someone like me, a lay reader, my judgement means little, but yours carry more weight as a critic—please use it wisely to persuade us who take time to read your thoughts.
44
Lindy, I read this article over breakfast this morning and I couldn't stop laughing! My cock is weeping tears of laughter.
45
I am a ginormous slash fan and I hate the phrase "weeping cock" too. It's hard to write a bunch of sex scenes without getting linguistically repetitive and/or hitting enough different pet peeves that you piss off most of your readers, though. Personally I'm not going to pick this book up because I'm not a fan of the time period or the attempts at historical language.
@39 look for a fandom with older fans if you're looking for men that are less feminized. Teenage women tend to prefer androgynous pretty boys because they're less threatening to their developing sexuality. Also avoid fandoms with a lot of crossover with anime or manga, since the Japanese analogue of slash is very gender structured and usually puts one character in the female role.
@39 look for a fandom with older fans if you're looking for men that are less feminized. Teenage women tend to prefer androgynous pretty boys because they're less threatening to their developing sexuality. Also avoid fandoms with a lot of crossover with anime or manga, since the Japanese analogue of slash is very gender structured and usually puts one character in the female role.
46
Umm... yeah, about slash... It's very dumb of to call it "dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson" 'cause it's not. Next time do your homework.
47
This article got several bursts of laughter out of me, but none as hard as "dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson". That is PRICELESS.
(And yes, I am a slash writer. The difference is that I'm a slash writer with a SENSE OF HUMOR.)
(And yes, I am a slash writer. The difference is that I'm a slash writer with a SENSE OF HUMOR.)
48
This article got several bursts of laughter out of me, but none as hard as "dirty gay fanfic about, like, Harry Potter touching Voldemort's magic johnson". That is PRICELESS.
(And yes, I am a slash writer. The difference is that I'm a slash writer with a SENSE OF HUMOR.)
(And yes, I am a slash writer. The difference is that I'm a slash writer with a SENSE OF HUMOR.)
49
Oh, and wanna know how bad a phrase "weeping cock" is? There's a whole community devoted to really bad pornfic with that name. This book sounds like it would be right at home there.
51
I'm sorry, but generally when I hear the phrase "weeping cock," it makes me think "weeping sores," and that individual needs to get checked out by a doctor, ASAP, because it doesn't sound healthy.
53
As a long, long time fan of slash (straight porn is really boring!) I have to say;
This book looks awful.
Most of us slash-ers are more of....well.
We're kinky assed sonsofbitches. We like the sex to be rough, we like bondage (and not silk scarves and a bit of slap & tickle). The main reason most of my fellow slashers read gay porn is because it's hot, it's dirty, and it's a little bit wrong (not really, but according to society, blah blah blah - not the point here).
Also. "Honeyed cleft".
...
.....No it's an asshole.
This book looks awful.
Most of us slash-ers are more of....well.
We're kinky assed sonsofbitches. We like the sex to be rough, we like bondage (and not silk scarves and a bit of slap & tickle). The main reason most of my fellow slashers read gay porn is because it's hot, it's dirty, and it's a little bit wrong (not really, but according to society, blah blah blah - not the point here).
Also. "Honeyed cleft".
...
.....No it's an asshole.
54
@21
"Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters."
Do I correctly understand that the M/M romance reader/writer crowd has made up a new definition for fisting? You'd better realize that attempting to reuse a word that already means one sexual activity (and has for at least three or four decades, maybe longer) for a different one is going to lead to what simply looks like ignorance of the (not exclusively) gay sexual practices you purport to write about.
And dialogue like "Just let me do this for thee, and if you like it not, I shall stop" suggests that the author is just as ignorant about historical usage as she is about sex. She uses the singular/intimate and the plural/formal to refer to the same person in the same sentence!
The weeping cock grosses me out, too. Sounds like either syphilis or herpes.
"Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters."
Do I correctly understand that the M/M romance reader/writer crowd has made up a new definition for fisting? You'd better realize that attempting to reuse a word that already means one sexual activity (and has for at least three or four decades, maybe longer) for a different one is going to lead to what simply looks like ignorance of the (not exclusively) gay sexual practices you purport to write about.
And dialogue like "Just let me do this for thee, and if you like it not, I shall stop" suggests that the author is just as ignorant about historical usage as she is about sex. She uses the singular/intimate and the plural/formal to refer to the same person in the same sentence!
The weeping cock grosses me out, too. Sounds like either syphilis or herpes.
55
@21
"Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters."
Do I correctly understand that the M/M romance reader/writer crowd has made up a new definition for fisting? You'd better realize that attempting to reuse a word that already means one sexual activity (and has for at least three or four decades, maybe longer) for a different one is going to lead to what simply looks like ignorance of the (not exclusively) gay sexual practices you purport to write about.
And dialogue like "Just let me do this for thee, and if you like it not, I shall stop" suggests that the author is just as ignorant about historical usage as she is about sex. She uses the singular/intimate and the plural/formal to refer to the same person in the same sentence!
The weeping cock grosses me out, too. Sounds like either syphilis or herpes.
"Fisting as in using you fist to jack off is a right on phrase. That crowd of fisters is far bigger than the handball players, ie. fisters."
Do I correctly understand that the M/M romance reader/writer crowd has made up a new definition for fisting? You'd better realize that attempting to reuse a word that already means one sexual activity (and has for at least three or four decades, maybe longer) for a different one is going to lead to what simply looks like ignorance of the (not exclusively) gay sexual practices you purport to write about.
And dialogue like "Just let me do this for thee, and if you like it not, I shall stop" suggests that the author is just as ignorant about historical usage as she is about sex. She uses the singular/intimate and the plural/formal to refer to the same person in the same sentence!
The weeping cock grosses me out, too. Sounds like either syphilis or herpes.
56
Check out Mary Renault's "The Persian Boy" for historical quasi-fiction that's not only an amazingly good novel, it's also jill-off sexy. It also keeps things classy, with not a weird euphemism for a body part in sight.
57
i can't wait for harry potter and the weeping cock of destiny to hit the shelves.
also, harry potter and the honeyed cleft. also.
also, harry potter and the honeyed cleft. also.
60
Thank you for writing this highly entertaining review. As I have not, would not and will not buy/steal/read this book, but have read your review three times, I feel pretty okay writing this.
I was vaguely offended by several of your comments, but that simply increased my amusement. I would like to submit to anyone else who actually reads this far down the comments that that was rather the point.
I'm slightly annoyed by your dismissal of slash culture-- it's way more ridiculous and weird than you made it out to be, although you're entirely correct about the girls at Con (they will do anything. Anything). I'm also a little bit miffed at the whole dismissal of British history.
However, I was amused. And that counts for a lot.
I was vaguely offended by several of your comments, but that simply increased my amusement. I would like to submit to anyone else who actually reads this far down the comments that that was rather the point.
I'm slightly annoyed by your dismissal of slash culture-- it's way more ridiculous and weird than you made it out to be, although you're entirely correct about the girls at Con (they will do anything. Anything). I'm also a little bit miffed at the whole dismissal of British history.
However, I was amused. And that counts for a lot.
62
"I wouldn't put anything past nerd-women who go to conventions and rub magical wizard staffs on each others' lady areas."
Damn! I've must have missed all these fun conventions. Woe me!
As a snarker who mods a large community dedicated to mocking shitty (fanfic) writing, I would have enjoyed your review, which was hilarious in parts. As a slash fan, your introduction just pissed me off by the amount of ignorance displayed about the topic. Seriously, not all (slash) fan fic is Harry Potter/Star Trek. Do some research next time. It won't kill you.
(Also, I am fascinated to find out that I am either straight, or not a slasher, being bisexual...)
Damn! I've must have missed all these fun conventions. Woe me!
As a snarker who mods a large community dedicated to mocking shitty (fanfic) writing, I would have enjoyed your review, which was hilarious in parts. As a slash fan, your introduction just pissed me off by the amount of ignorance displayed about the topic. Seriously, not all (slash) fan fic is Harry Potter/Star Trek. Do some research next time. It won't kill you.
(Also, I am fascinated to find out that I am either straight, or not a slasher, being bisexual...)
63
"I wouldn't put anything past nerd-women who go to conventions and rub magical wizard staffs on each others' lady areas."
Damn! I've must have missed all these fun conventions. Woe me!
As a snarker who mods a large community dedicated to mocking shitty (fanfic) writing, I would have enjoyed your review, which was hilarious in parts. As a slash fan, your introduction just pissed me off by the amount of ignorance displayed about the topic. Seriously, not all (slash) fan fic is Harry Potter/Star Trek. Do some research next time. It won't kill you.
(Also, I am fascinated to find out that I am either straight, or not a slasher, being bisexual...)
Damn! I've must have missed all these fun conventions. Woe me!
As a snarker who mods a large community dedicated to mocking shitty (fanfic) writing, I would have enjoyed your review, which was hilarious in parts. As a slash fan, your introduction just pissed me off by the amount of ignorance displayed about the topic. Seriously, not all (slash) fan fic is Harry Potter/Star Trek. Do some research next time. It won't kill you.
(Also, I am fascinated to find out that I am either straight, or not a slasher, being bisexual...)
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (63) RSS